Charlie Manson & The Qur’an

Madness, A Mood, Can Be Contagious:

Madness is not just a disease, but also controlled, and impelled, to some extent, as a mood. Moreover, tolerance to madness is itself a contagious disease.

One modern proof? Some forms of madness in individuals can be mitigated by drugs. However, the patients’ state is improved if they undergo “Cognitive (Behavioral or not) Therapy”. They can learn that they are subject to madness (and when it’s coming), and learn to mitigate their crises..

Madness in individuals is not viewed as madness, in a mad society. Believing that the “Free Market” was a civilization, belongs to the same general tolerance to madness as the Qur’an is a civilization. A youngish French pundit (totally white and not at all Muslim, but a vague leftist) just boldly asserted on ONPC, one of the most popular show in France, that the Islamist State had nothing to do with the Qur’an. Clearly, he never read the Qur’an. I propose that he goes to Raqqa and teach the Qur’an to the Islamist State, this way, the world will be safer: what is more dangerous that unfathomable stupidity?

[The BBC published this photo, after erasing the Swastika, weirdly enough. That shows a drastic lack of culture on its part: just as Hitler found his “Fuererprinzip” in the Qur’an (see below), he found the Swastika in Indian religions: Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism(s). Hitler was apparently better read than (some at) the BBC.]

One ancient proof that madness arise from culture-wide moods?

Watch the Romans dissecting chickens before a potential battle, to see if it should be engaged. That was obviously idiotic. One of the first Roman admirals was told by the local Imam (‘augure”) that the sacred chickens would not drink, a bad omen, and thus that battle should not be engaged, according to the respected Roman state religion. Irritated, the admiral grabbed the chickens, and threw them in the sea:’Now they will drink!’ (He lost the battle.)

Ultimately, the superstitious Roman religion was put in doubt by the tolerance extended to all the non-human sacrificial religions: the Roman saw that religions could be anything. However emperors could also see that Monotheism, started by an Egyptian Pharaoh, then amplified by the Jews, would be most useful to their rule.

Monotheism extends the Fascist Principle to the universe: everybody has a chief, everybody obeys that chief absolutely. Adolf Hitler may well as found in the Qur’an (as Sura IV, Verse 59).

“O Ye Who Believe! Obey Allah, and obey the messenger and OBEY THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE IN POWER.”

Charlie Manson was a Californian sect leader who was accused to have indoctrinated followers in such a way that they engaged in several deadly attacks (the eighth month pregnant wife of Roman Polanski, the actress Sharon tate, was butchered alive in one of these). Manson was condemned to death (commuted later to life).

The prosecution argued the triggering of “Helter Skelter” was Manson’s main motive. Manson had been impressed by a song in the Beatles’White Album. References to that song were left (pig, rise, helter skelter). Manson predicted that the murders blacks would commit at the outset of Helter Skelter would involve the writing of “pigs” on walls in victims’ blood. Manson was viewed as responsible, although he was not at the crime scene, nor gave direct orders.

It was all completely insane. But human minds are fragile. As long as criminally insane discourses are held in books claiming to be orders from god, one should not be surprised that the unsatisfied and frustrated will find all the excuses they need there to get on a rampage.

This has now happened several times in the USA. The terrorism in San Bernardino, by a couple who pledged obedience to the Islamist State, is the latest example.

We are victims: everywhere an ambiance of terror is rising (schools, for example, have to prepare for the worst, a worst that was unimaginable in the 1960s: only the Nazis attacked schools). It brings up the police state.

What is the difference between a “sacred” book full of hatred and explicit orders to kill, with Charlie Manson’s rambling, viciously aggressive discourses? Philosophers want to know. All right, I am unfair to Charlie Manson, who was not convicted for giving explicit orders to kill. The general mood Manson created was viewed as responsible enough, of the murders which happened.

The French president, last week, in stroke of Enlightenment, declared that the present war was not a clash of civilization:

“We are not committed to a war of civilizations, because these assassins don’t represent any civilization,” Hollande said. “We are in a war against terrorism, jihadism, which threatens the whole world.”

A religion was indeed never a civilization. At least in the West (be it only because, in the West, there were always several religions, Judaism one of them, in spite of centuries of frantic mass murdering by Christian fanatics.)

“Christian Civilization” never existed: the law used in Europe, except in the most savage parts and times, was actually ROMAN LAW (or Frankish/Salian law… which had been written by Roman lawyers, in Latin). Saint Louis wanted to kill Jews and Unbelievers (!), but he recognized that was against the law, he wrote. Roman Law itself was pretty much independent from Roman Superstition (aka Roman Religion). When Roman emperor Justinian ordered a refurbishment of Roman Law around 540 CE, he explicitly ordered to separate the religious/superstitious aspects from SECULAR LAW.

So, indeed, “We are in a war against terrorism, Jihadism, which threatens the whole world.”

Yes, and please remind me who wrote, and where is written, the theory of Jihadism? And why is that theory of Jihadism, that those who kill as ordered by Allah go directly to Paradise, still preached? You want safety? Make it unlawful. Or, more precisely, just apply existing laws against hate crimes. And then punish it so hard, that it will stop.

29 Responses to “Charlie Manson & The Qur’an”

Your student and his comment about ISIS and the Koran just reminds me that the level of stupidity encountered in this domain is just staggering.

I have downloaded and databased the entire Koran (Yusuf Ali translation), and I am currently reading and analysing it. As I already knew but am confirming in detail, it is just horrible and nonsensical in equal measure, a true insult to the intellect and the human spirit. Why on earth are so many people just incapable of studying the evidence? It is quite depressing in fact.

I want to thank you, Chris, for engaging in this task. This is what all people pretending to be “intellectuals” should do, at this point. I have stridently recommended it for many years. The Qur’an is not that long: I write more in my essays on this site in three months (and I am not nearly as repetitive! ;=)).

First time I read the Qur’an (in Arabic) I was in my teens. I was spiteful. Now I am much more spiteful of all the pseudo-thinkers who say insane things about the Qur’an without ever having read it (as Obama did, and most French “intellectuals”, truly total greedy idiots).

As it is, if someone is insane, and has a grudge, they can convert to Islam (takes seconds) than call the irritating party “unbelievers” and go kill them, with god’s (expected) approval.

People tend to be natural intellectual fascists: follow the leader. Thinking is more economic that way, being then thoroughly uncreative.

I am reading the Koran too. Abominable is the word. No wonder the crazies in San Bernardino, who planned, so long ago that the terrorist who lived in Saudi Arabia for 25 years, came to America just to commit murder, and had a little girl, just as part of the scheme, the FBI just said!!!!!!!!!!!

It is certainly itself a madness of the crowds. And tolerance is always the easy way out. Thus, if one tolerates notions about Islam that Islamists themselves convey (“Islam is a religion of peace”, “Islam respects women”, etc. ) one has chosen the easy way out. It is certainly easier than reading the Qur’an… Even easier is to speak as if one had read the Qur’an, and it’s exactly like the Islamists themselves depict it… We had the the same problem with various fascist ideologies in the past, from Stalinism, to Nazism, to so-called “free market capitalism”…

The problem is finding an objective definition of “madness”. Sanity is mostly the the current madness of the crowd. Civilizations always look mostly mad to those that come after.

“By their fruits shall you know them…” It’s arguable how many healthy, nutritious fruits our civilisation is producing. It’s wrecked the food chain, replacing flavour with blandness and introducing toxic elements at every stage in the interest of “growth” because “bigger is better”.

Chris Snuggs: Islam deserves two entries in “The Guinness Book Of Records” for being: A) the biggest and most destructive lie in history and B) the biggest example of delusional mass hysteria in history.

For over 1000 years millions of people have based their entire lives on the delusional ramblings in a pontificating, totalitarian, contradictory and often nonsensical military manuel of a paedophile, mysogenist, bigoted and megalomaniacal psychopath from the deserts of Arabia. And STILL otherwise sane people defend a cult that has such a warped, twisted amd depraved attitude to so many things we hold (in theory, but about time we stood up for them) dear: liberty of thought, religion, speech and political system plus equality of races, creeds and sexes. Islam transgresses so many of these fundamental freedoms as enshrined in the UN Charter that the former should be banned. Yet “the left” constantly defends it. As I said, delusional.

Islam closely came on the heels of insane “Orthodox Catholicism” of Sixth Century Rome, and Muhammad was directly advised (!) and inspired by it, he said it himself. Then Islam was deliberately built as a war machine against (a much weakened by delirious Catholicism) Rome. I have detailed all these aspects in various essays long ago. So the anti-humanism of the Qur’an is actually a ruse to overwhelm both Persians and Romans… who expected some modicum of humanism, and were immensely surprised by the cruelty of the 40,000 Islamist warriors, who systematically killed all wounded enemies, and potential draftees.

“Islam deserves two entries in “The Guinness Book Of Records” for being: A) the biggest and most destructive lie in history”

Doesn’t it needs to notch up a few more genocides to compete with christianity and it’s offshoots in terms of millions of deaths caused? I don’t doubt that Islam hasn’t killed and enslaved millions, but when it comes to decimating the native peoples of entire continents, lets remember that the murderous instigators of “Manifest Destiny” and “Final Solution” (and many others…) are not from Islam.

Of course it’s like asking “who was the worst serial killer?”. So long as we keep in mind that secular political ideologies have been by far the biggest mass killers of recent centuries.

Muhammad in the Qur’an addresses what he views as the problem of the “Romans”. Basically the “Romans” prevent attacks on caravans by Arabs, making them bad. But a opportunity has risen, because of the war of the Romans with the Persians, etc.
So, right from the start, Islam was made as an ideology of war AGAINST Civilization.

I see what you are saying, Hazxan. However, one point I make always is that the West was NOT A CHRISTIAN CIVILIZATION. It looked like one twice: around 400 CE, and around 1400 CE. But, in either case, although an attempt was made, the basic law was NOT Christian, but Roman (or the Salic law of the Franks, which was Roman written).

The “Final Solution” was Nazi (although I have accused many times Christianism to have inspired it). The “Manifest Destiny” was not particularly Christian (Founding Fathers and their preceding generation were very anti-Christian, and for “Nature’s God”). The Crusades were, mostly, a counter-attack (although I am very anti-crusades, that’s what they were in first order).

The annihilation of the Natives did not have to be a consequence from the Christian nature of the invaders. A very good example is the French, who never eradicated a population of Natives (and that’s why they lost America!)

“Secular ideologies” may have been by far the biggest mass killers…. Because they suppress everything else. In primitive societies the kill ratio is more like 50% (or at least 25%), whereas the two World Wars killed rather around 2% to 4% (at most, directly and indirectly, through famines and diseases they contributed to)

Muhammed wiped out peaceful Christians and Jews in a long military campaign of brute force and terror. The Crusades came CENTURIES later and no doubt copied some of the Arabs’ barbarity. That tends to happen in war, not least because if not one side feels it is ceding an advantage to the other.

Nobody excuses the barbarity of the official church during the Middle Ages, not least in the appalling extermination of the Cathars in SW France. However, the people responsible, Pope Innocent and Simon de Montfort and others, had strayed FAR from Jesus’ example and messsage. This is in contrast to Muslims, who in committing acts of terror are doing EXACTLY what their “Prophet” commanded them to do: continuing the military campaign to spread the cult by every means available.

I am particularly fascinated by the Islamic obsession with decapitation, whuch is precisely what Muhammed kept referring to in the Koran (that great book of world peace!!) by “smiting the heads of the Disbelievers”. There are lots of “smiting” references in this depraved military manual.

They may be a pain at times, but I prefer the Jehovah’Witnesses’ way of doing it.

The Franks rolled back the Muslim invaders as early as the early EIGHT Century. Charlemagne pushed the Muslims back, creating Catalonia, Aragon, etc. Muslims occupied Provence, raided up to Switzerland, for decades in the Tenth Century, before being thrown out by a joint Frank-Constantinople Sea-Land war. At some point a Frankish army, in the TENTH Century freed Rome from a Muslim army. However the latter had burned the Vatican… Then the Franks freed Sicily and Southern Italy, und so weiter…

We all find the world confusing (more some than others). Therefore when we (speaking of people generally) make up our minds about something (for whatever reason, indoctrination, imitating someone else or even thinking!) we are reluctant to have to change our mind even when confronted by compelling evidence and/or arguments. We are so relieved to have reached a clear and firm position on something – and thus brought some order to chaos – that the thought of having to rethink it all is just too much work and stress. Besides, changing one’s mind involves admitting one was wrong. Which is all to say that there is often a great resistance to modifying a received and/or fixed opinion; only philosophers (amateur or otherwise) constantly question things – which is why so few people change either their religion or their vote. Many STILL think that Islam is “just another religion”, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. HOWEVER, this resistance to change is analagous to a geological fault; the stress builds up until suddenly, it causes a major shift. This may well be happening with the FN in France, and also regarding Islam. As someone said, the more people study Islam, the more they will loathe it, and the very publicity it is now enjoying may help to bring about its downfall..

Indeed Chris, and this is why I ask everybody to read the Qur’an. Most “Muslims” have not read the Qur’an. They know actually nearly nothing of it. The Islamist State KNOWS THE QUR’AN VERY WELL, and applies it, hence its success. So the more people know the Qur’an, the more they will understand it’s a MILITARY phenomenon, rather than a gentle peaceful way to contemplate and obey god.

The brain, indeed, has inertia. The root of that inertia, not to say anesthesia, is physical: after all, the brain is a physical architecture. Once built, it’s impossible to change. Hopefully you are right and public opinion is moving. Although a fanatical European, I got increasingly disgusted in the way the EU has developed, a bland ectoplasm. The victory of the FN in 6 regions is actually a positive development (and I have no love for the right!) For the reasons you said.
Strange how things evolve. But I guess many a communist who ended voting for Hitler felt that way… (Just kidding: Marine Le pen has long said correct things about banks only Melanchon dared to say… and he actually recognized she was right….)
PA

As an aside (or maybe, a valid comparison?), it is worth noting that Manson was not an hippie “religious” leader : he was first and foremost an organized crime/gang leader, a lifelong career criminal running a serious prostitution and drug dealing ring, his “family” more of a rightwing/white supremacist militia (as evidenced by the later paths of its member and the popularity of Charlie in US WS circles) than an hippie commune. Hippies tend not not to patrol their ground in buggies, carrying semi-auto rifles and two-ways radios, and to routinely murder rival drug dealers or pimp runaways.
AFAIK, the “Helter skelter” thing is a BS prosecution theory anyway, that the Manson family grabbed and ran with – though Manson was a big time racist (raped too many times in juvenile jail, most likely). And that’s even without taking into account the conspiracy theory making Manson a regional manager for a larger criminal entity masquerading as a religious cult (cf. http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/2012/11/the-process-church-of-the-final-judgment-and-the-manson-family/) .

Patrice, with this article, I’m not sure whether you are very profound…or very confused!

I think your parallel between Manson/Helter Skelter and Isis/Qu’ran is very smart. Yet millions of people listened to that song and didn’t turn into murderers. Just as millions of people read the Qu’ran and don’t turn into terrorists. The book/song itself can not directly cause behaviour. Only in the weak links in the human chain.

It is a good metaphor, because it shows how those with murderous intentions can justify them using pretty much anything, However, in all your many writings about it, you give the impression that you believe The Book is a direct cause with words powerful enough to turn originally rational beings into insane killers. If I’ve misunderstood you, then fair enough, but there are many other people who also hold that view.

You know there have been several brutal murders where the killers quoted and sang songs from the movie “Reservoir Dogs”. Do we ban that? Does it make people kill?

The Qu’ran also has many commentaries written about the esoteric aspects of it – as does the Bible. I’m sure you’re aware of this, although 99% are not, which includes the most slavish devout followers of those religions.

The murderous intentions come from the minds of humans – where else could they come from?

Dear Hazxan: Got to run. So I will come back to your remarks later. I doubt most “Muslims” have a passing knowledge of Islam’s sacred texts. If I examined them, they probably would get an F. Most of them. Probably more than 95%…

I never saw “Reservoir Dogs”. I know there is a movies by that name, supposedly violent. Anything can be justified for as part of some devious logic: this is close to my TEST OF INTELLIGENCE, through UNPREDICTABLE LOGIC. (Roll over Turing Test!)

However, the case of the sacred texts of Islam is different. More is different. More quotes conducive to violence, more violence against most groups, and… more followers.

If 100,000 people had read “Mein Kampf”, it would have been OK. However 80 millions were exposed to it.

What’s going on? Islam is not the madness a few millions of movie goers shared for 100 minutes. Islam is a system of thoughts, and moods, and ORDERS FROM GOD (no less!) shared by not just a few millions, but more than a billion people. Then a new phenomenon can arise: the madness of crowds. The madness of crowds makes what would be insane in an isolated individual, into the sincerity, the respect, the allure, the élan, the stampede, of a charging herd.

To boot we are told we are racist, if we do not respect the madness. If we insult a guy dead for nearly 1400 years, we are told we should die.

Human minds are physical constructs. However, those physical constructs are established by communicating their architecture, through culture. A murderous mind is built culturally always. Nowadays, however, one murderous mind now can kill millions, through WMDs. Thus murderous minds have to be deconstructed, neutralized. Hence mass murdering minded cultures have to be exterminated… Before they exterminate us. Plain and simple. (What goes for Putin, who has made laudable efforts to clean his acts, goes for all others, not just Russian Orthodox megalo-paranoia…)

I think we’re broadly in agreement… my point with Reservoir Dogs would be that if whole populations were exposed to it for an hour a day, if community leaders continually preached and quoted the “terrifying message” to us, then sure enough there would be much more savagery based on it. As it is, most see the film and aren’t affected by it. Which is actually the case the with other religious books too. It is the context, the constant preaching by leaders manipulating the words to their own ends, that is what pushes people.

Indeed, we agree. Salafism/Literalism was made unlawful by Sultan Saladin. Punishment: death. General/President Sissi is in the same situation, 800 years later. The interesting is that, aside from Northern Ireland a bit at some point, nobody is preaching Literal Christianim anymore. So there is hope.
Hearing a continual discourse of violence makes for violent, or otherwise degenerated brains.

The advantage with Christianism is that the mythical Jesus separated Church and State very clearly: “Render to Caesar…”. Muhammad WAS Caesar.